US Regulations makes the rear bigger?

Was wandering if there is some regulations in the US about bumpers?
Because the rear bumber kind of sticks out in a weird way, it didn't do that on the concept? I live in Sweden and our Focuses looks different from the ones you have over there, in the states the rearbumper is sticking out...
Is there any connection?

There are safety standards for bumpers here. As a matter of fact,there are several standards for different speeds of impacts.

Yeah, the U.S. has minimum height standards for bumpers, along with minimum speed standards.

There are too many stupid bumper standard laws in this country. They mean nothing. If you take a look at any 99 - 04 Mustangs that have had rear end or front end collisions, you will see that these plastic bumpers that stick out have fallen off the car. The current bumpers on the Mustangs are only plastic covers that fall off during a collision. They are there for purely show purposes and have no affect on protecting passengers during a front or rear end collision. There is a black metal bar going across the front and rear facia of the Mustang behind the bumpers. This black metal bar is what saves the life of the driver and the passengers during a front and rear end collision. The plastic bumper sticking out has nothing to do with the stupid socialist bumper standard laws that exist here in the United States.

Only someone from a socialist country like Sweden would be the only one to think about these stupid bumper standard laws for the new 2005 Mustang. I only have to say that I'm glad that Sweden is far far away from here. Keep the socialists away from here.

Does everything you say have to be some xenophobic, McCarthyistic drabble that would make Dale Dribble from King of the Hill look intelligent?

Like it or not....those are our (American) bumper laws...like it or lump it.

Fer chrissakes....go back to the militia will ya.

I'm not a Xenophobe. I'm an isolationist. There's a BIG difference there Dexter.


And I don't belong to any Militia. What makes you think that I belong to the militia?

I'm just a true right wing conservative American who hates socialists and people who impose socialist laws upon my own country. Let them do it elsewhere. Not here in my own country.

God Bless America.

Fine...whatever. Just try to keep the discussion to Mustangs and avoid the political interjections. We're going to get enough of that in an election year.

And yes..God Bless America....where choice is still valued, democracy reins supreme, and everybody has opinion.

Thank you!

We won't be seeing much more of everyones favorite porn star around these parts.

And what does that mean?

Yeah, what does that mean? Nobody can do anything to him. He's a republican. That would be unpatriotic.

lol

ron did you read what i wrote you in the complaints thread? you somehow manage to turn every damn car thread into some rant about "socialists and communists" (though I have seen no evidence that you know what either term implies) that makes no sense.

God... please cut it out...

I'm pretty sure this is the answer to "what's wrong with America today?"

Anyway, without getting looped into your right-wing nut-babble, you're not entirely correct on the bumper question (which, I believe, was the point of this thread).

Yes, there are bumper standards in the US pertaining to the design of the bumper. There are two critical areas here, (1) is height/ground clearance, and (2) is impact tolerance. (1) says that bumpers in the US have to be a certain height off the ground. To my knowledge, in Europe, there is no requirement as to the ground clearance of the bumper. (as a side note, for Ron's neo-con interest, the reason for the height laws in the first place is due to the abundance of HUGE vehicles that don't exist in Europe. If the US were truly 'socialist', the government would not have bothered with a bumper height standard, and simply said 'no more SUVs, you pigs'.). Back to the topic - (2) says that the bumper has to be able to absorb impacts at specific speeds. New bumpers will have to withstand impacts of 5mph or greater without damaging the vehicle (or its occupant) at all. I don't know what standards of that kind exist in Europe. Once again, calling this a 'socialist'/big government idea is actually backwards, because the cost to government and society is about 10x greater without impact absorbing bumpers (think police & fire services, medical bills, etc., etc., as opposed to 300$ for a new bumper).

On a side note, why arent there headlight height standards? I'm sick of taller vehicles blinding me at night cause their lights are still in the grill even though their a foot taller than my car. Hits me right in the face instead of shinning on the road. There's no reason they couldn't be in their bumpers to lower how high off the ground they are.

Ignorance Breeds Hate!

Sorry to Correct you further Ron, But...... There Are Reasons for, Not Only Bumper Height, But also for Crush Zones and Impact Absorption. Those Plastic Covers Are there Mainly for Styling Purposes, But they are also Deformable as compared to Solid Metal Bumpers which is why Our Government set these Standards. The US Government set these laws for multiple purposes way back in the early 70's (When You Were doing Porn), Begining in 73 for the front of vehicles and for the rear in 74. You see these LAWS not only protect the occupants of the vehicle but also any Pedestrian that said vehicle might strike accidentaly. Which would you rather be Hit by, an Aluminum Baseball Bat or a Plastic Covered Foam Bat? The Point is Clearly Obvious, the Bumpers on Modern Cars are NOT there just for looks. Underneath those plastic covers there is usually a Foam or Egg Crate Rubber "Block" shaped to fit the contours of the Plastic Cover. Yes there are Metal Bumpers Behind These Elements in the event that the Crash does have enough force to injure the occupants of the vehicle, but the foam or rubber also absorb alot of energy from the crash as well as lessening the amount of injury to a pedestrian.

As for bumpar Height Regulations, they also are affected by more than one govening standard, the regulation of Height across the board makes every vehicle more likely to impact another vehicle at the same point so as to double the crash absorption, and localize the point of impact to the same area in font and rear Impacts. The height laws in Europe even go as far as considering how the height will affect pedestrians in an accident setting as well.

European regulations are Far More Stringent, that's the reason All European cars have folding or "Breakaway" mirrors, and as far as I know, the reason "Pop Up" headlights have been made illegal as well! I believe Ford of Europe is also at work trying to create an outside frontal airbag system to soften the impact in an accident involving a Pedestrian.

So to End this debate I suggest you do a Bit More research before spouting your Ignorance to the subject at hand, and any others, Mr. Jeremy!

Just Because you say it or believe it DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE or FACT! I am an American Through and Through, Yes I Do Believe Our Government has Many Problems, and I do not agree with them on many levels, BUT I do not like to spread PROPOGANDA the way you seam to enjoy to!

I Have a Saying that I came up with and I believe it is called for in this instance, IGNORANCE BREEDS HATE! HATE BREEDS VIOLENCE! IGNORANT PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BREED!

Laughing My F'ing Ass Off!

You all have very interesting information about the bumper standards. I congradulate all of you for your efforts for trying to explain the stupid bumper standard laws to a right wing conservative like myself. I do agree with some of the things that you say in here. And I agree with ONLY 1 thing. And this is that every car must have a bumper on it. But I disagree about every car needing to have HUGE PLASTIC protruding bumpers. I got a question to ask all of you rocket scientists in here. WHERE ARE THE CHROME BUMPERS that all cars once had in the late 60's? I don't mind the plastic fake bumpers that they put on today's cars, but I think that American auto manufacturers should bring back the chrome wrap around bumpers that they used to put on cars during the late 60's. The chrome bumpers give a car nostalgia. The plastic bumpers are too blah. You know what I mean? They make a car look really cheap. They already made all cars lighter weight and cheaper quality with all the fake plastic junk materials that they put on the car, so why not build cars with chrome bumpers again. A little chrome will not hurt the looks of these cars. But I guess that the auto manufacturers and insurance companies are too hung up about the height and collision requirements on each vehicle. Who cares about height and collision requirements anymore? We don't need height and collision requirements anymore. All vehicles manufactured today are safer than a 57 Chevy was back in the 1950's. So why have these stupid laws? Americans are being baboozled and brainwashed by the socialists into beleiving that they STILL need more safety junk to be put on or in every vehicle. We already have ENOUGH safety junk on cars. We don't need NO MORE!

So what happens next? Auto manufacturers start putting more plastic into their vehicles to make them safer. Yeah right. Plastic, plastic, plastic. This is IRONIC because plastic vehicle parts do NOT save American lives. STEEL and ALUMINUM DO. So, my argument here is that if our vehicles are lighter weight like they are today then they can sustain a chrome bumper that weighs a few more pounds. A plastic bumper with foam under it aint going to do nothing to protect American lives. And the steel bar behind the bumpers aint going to help that much either if the bumper itself is plastic and foam. How many rocket scientists in here know what I am talking about? The plastic has to go and the steel/chrome bumpers have to come back. How many of you rocket scientists in here disagree with me? And how many agree with me? Do you think that I have a good point? Do you think that we should bring back some of the chrome that is missing from the vehicles that are manufactured today? I do.

Please tell me what you all think about this issue. Ron Jeremy is all ears.

To answer your question from an engineering standpoint - there's no PHYSICAL reason why Ford couldn't use a chrome bumper. Either plastic painted chrome, a thin, plated metal .. whatever. From an engineering perspective, it's completely feasible. So the answer to 'why not use a chrome bumper?' boils down to one of two answers. The first is COST. Though I can't speak to actual numbers, I have a feeling shaped metal like that is significantly more expensive than moulded plastic. The second, and more likely, IMO, is simply that NO ONE WANTS CHROME ANYMORE! Except you, apparently.

There is no government law that says 'no chrome'. But Ford's not going to make it if it's expensive and no one wants it. That's called business.

That's completely incorrect, and rather ignorant of the entire vehicle design process. Today's cars make use of ingenious design and materials (including plastics) to protect occupants. Next time there's a wreck somewhere, go take a look at the cars - they're designed to fold and buckle in precise ways so as to protect the occupants (ie, the vehicle absorbs the collision energy, not the driver). Simply saying 'metal is stronger than plastic, so it's safer' is absolutely not true.

Because if we didn't have the laws, they'd quickly become unsafe again as manufacturers remove a whole bunch of materials to save on cash. Modern vehicles are safer BECAUSE OF the laws, not IN SPITE OF them.

Not true. A plastic bumper does more to protect you as a driver than a solid metal one does. Simple physics. When you crash, SOMETHING is going to absorb the energy your car lost in going from 40mph to 0mph rather quickly. That something can either be (a) a plastic, foam, and metal bumper & front end that crumples to absorb the energy, or (b) your spine, because your car is made of iron and won't budge at all. Think about it.

You bring out some really good points here. I like your point of view as an engineer.

Like you said, chrome bumpers would be nice on our current vehicles. Auto manufacturers have put too much plastic and they have cut costs down to the bone. Adding some chrome bumpers aint going to hurt them finacially when they already cut back on all the extra weight on their vehicles. I think that some cars would look really nice with chrome on them. Everything nowadays is plastic. They have overdone it with plastic. Bring back some chrome on our cars.

Automakers aren't as well-off as you think they are. This is not a case of Ford making $10,000 profit on each vehicle because they replaced all the metal with plastic...

In fact, Ford probably makes less than $1000 per vehicle on the average vehicle. Larger trucks ($40,000 and up) probably earn a bit more profit, and I'd be willing to wager that Ford makes no more than $500 on a small car like the Focus.

These aren't companies rolling in dough. In fact, Chrysler is in serious trouble - I'd be willing to bet you $100 that Chrysler is filing for bankruptcy within 5-10 years. GM is doing 'good', but certainly not great, and Ford is somewhere in the middle. I would classify Ford, from a financial perspective, as 'treading water' right about now. They could be in trouble in a few years too.

Contrary to what you may think, $200 extra for chrome bumpers on a car is a HUGE deal to an automaker.

I did some research back in the late 90's and I found out that auto manufacturers make BIG profits on trucks. For example, a 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee only costs Chrysler $15,000 to $17,000 to build. They then turn around and sell it for $32,000 to the dealer and the dealer turns around and sells it for $35,000 to $38,000 to the consumer. That's too much of a markup that the auto manufacturers have for an SUV like that. That's why all cars are expensive. Auto manufacturers are selling them for too much to the dealer and the dealer is selling them too much to the stupid consumer. A decent car should not cost anymore than $14,000. But noooooo. The manufacturers have to gouge the dealer and the dealer in return has to gouge the consumer. That's not fair. That's nothing more than just plain robbery.